All of the studies you cited are nearly 20+ years old (most recent one was 1988). Do you have anything more recent? Particularly something from the Journal of the American Medical Association or another well-known journal, say in the last 2-5 years? Just to prove that it wasn't a fad (as things go with academic publishing).
Also, from the following...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jenny Hatch
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Administration of opiates, barbiturates, and nitrous oxide (for greater than 1 h) to mothers of all subjects during labour within 10 hours before birth as a risk factor for adult opiate addiction.
RESULTS--In subjects who had subsequently become addicts a significant proportion of mothers had received opiates or barbiturates, or both, compared with unmatched siblings (25% v 16%, chi 2 = 5.83, df = 1, p = 0.02), and these mothers had received nitrous oxide for longer and more often.
After controlling for hospital of birth, order of birth, duration of labour, presentation other than vertex, surgical intervention, asphyxia, meconium stained amniotic fluid, and birth weight the relative risk for offspring subsequently becoming an adult opiate addict increased with the number of administrations of any of the three drugs.
When the addicts were matched with their own siblings the estimated relative risk was 4.7 (95% confidence interval 1.8 to 12.4, p for trend = 0.002) for three administrations compared with when no drug was given.
CONCLUSIONS--The results are compatible with the imprinting hypothesis. Therefore, for obstetric pain relief methods are preferable that do not permit substantial passage of drugs through the placenta.
|
... I see no
n whatsoever. Also, who decided that the
p=0.002 for this "trend?" I'd like to know if this is a common
p value and why, because in similar fields of research a
p of lower than 0.05 cannot hold water.